Anyone have an opinion of the "Defined King James Bible?" - Page 2

bibleprotector · 06-30-2009, 01:35 AM

There are several problems with the "Defined Bible", in that it could not be considered an authoritative "Bible Dictionary", though it is somewhat helpful. Some example of issues include:

a. only a selection of words are defined.

b. some definitions are too simple, even incorrect (some doctrinal bias also is manifest, but this is only an issue where theology differs).

c. there is as yet a lack of reliance on a wider range of materials, for more sound definitions (for example, if someone defers to David Daniels' "archaic" definitions, he himself relied upon Webster, but the Bible itself should be used to define a word, and the Oxford English Dictionary should be a major "witness").

d. there is a marked reliance upon the "Hebrew" and the "Greek". For example, "devil" is defined as "demon" (as if "devil" isn't clear enough), "pence" is defined as "denarius" (a simple word being defined as a foreign, complex one, to the confutation of the sense), "frankly" wrongly defined according to the Greek, rather than the English, where it comes from the Latin, via French.

e. Various words are wrongly listed as archaic. The King James Bible does not contain "out of date" or "obsolete" language, though it may contain some "hard" or "unusual" words.

f. Plain terms like "justified" are unnecessarily defined, and tragically called "archaic"!

The authority of the English Bible is in the Bible itself, and in the understanding of Bible English, NOT IN RUNNING BACK TO THE GREEK, as Waite wrongly does in his "Defined King James Version". (Also Waite has used the Concord Edition of the King James Bible rather than the Pure Cambridge Edition.)

Are not "abide", "record", "borne" or "bear" perfectly good English words used in the King James Bible? Is not the meaning of them clear in English? Why go to the Greek to try and find the fuller sense and meaning of a word, when the word is plain and clear enough in English; where the meaning can be understood from the context and conference of Scripture passages; where the English word is defined from English sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)... in short, there is no good reason why the Greek should be used to define an English word, or to make the meaning clearer. In fact it does the opposite.

Going to the Greek is problematic on several grounds:

a. it undermines belief in the power of God that He has given His Word fully in English.

b. the Greek can be used to justify anything, and change anything and make any new doctrine.

c. it challenges the absolute of having one fixed Word in English, undermining the authority of God's Scripture.

d. it makes people trust in men, that is, in wrong scholars.

bibleprotector · 06-30-2009, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

The Defined KJB is simply another copy of the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJB with uncommon words defined or briefly explained in footnotes on the bottom of the page.

First of all, it is not a 1769 Cambridge Edition. It is, in fact, the Concord Edition, which seems to date (as far as being made common) the 1980s.
See http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
and http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Second, words like "baptism" can hardly be called "uncommon".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Many times the "definitions" are simply synonyms that are the modern day equivalent (or close to it) to the word used in the text that is not in common use.

Modern day terms are not "equivalent". If they were, then some words in the KJB could be legitimately replaced. However, I have shown that each word as it stands is important, e.g. in my Glistering Truths monograph.

Manny Rodriguez · 06-30-2009, 06:59 AM

Bibleprotector, you are misrepresenting what the Waites did in the Defined KJB. There is not a "marked reliance" in the Greek to define words. The Greek was only consulted on an OCCASIONAL basis as an extra source when a difficulty arose in determining which definition to use amongst 5 different English dictionaries.

On page vi-vii, in the Introduction by the Footnote Author and Editor (which was D. A. Waite Jr.), Waite Jr. states:

"Although my main purpose required the use of standard English dictionaries, occasionally I had to consult Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to determine which of the English definitions was best for the given word or context. Sometimes I could not decide on a suitable English definition for a given word and therefore gave an appropriate Hebrew or Greek meaning. Occasionally I gave both an English and a Hebrew/Greek definition."

Notice the consultation of the Greek and Hebrew was OCCASIONAL. It was not the norm. The vast majority of the definitions given were derived from a consultation of 5 of the most authoritative English dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary.

Now if someone is totally against any kind of consultation of the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a word, then the occasional reference to the Greek and Hebrew will be undesirable to such a person. Personally, as I have explained here before, I do not think its wrong to consult the Greek and Hebrew when studying the background of a word. At any rate, I have my Defined KJB right here beside me as I type (I use it daily in my devotions and studies), and as I flip through the pages I can tell you that there is hardly a reference to the Greek or Hebrew. The vast majority of the definitions given are simply English definitions or modern-day synonyms (for you Matthew since you don't like my choice of the word "equivalent").

As far as calling certain words archaic, it must be understood that such a term is in no way, shape, or form an attempt to undermine the English of the KJB. The fact of the matter is that some words in the KJB are no longer in use, therefore the term archaic is used to describe them. Now if you prefer a different term to describe such words (I prefer the term uncommon) than suit yourself. The truth is that not only are some of the words in the KJB no longer in use, some of the language in the KJB was NEVER in use.

There is a common misconception, even amongst King James Bible-believers, that the KJB was written in the common language of the English-speaking people of that day. This is not true. For example, no one was saying thee and thou, on a common basis, in those days. They said you. Check it out. This is explained in Riplinger's In Awe of Thy Word, Phil Stringer's Biblical English, and even touched on a little in Sam Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible. The language used in the KJB was not a common jargon and never was. It was strictly a literary style that was majestic in nature. The KJV translators were concerned with accuracy not simplicity. So at times, the words chosen were words uncommon even in their day.

The point is that the term "archaic" is simply an attempt to describe the uncommonness of Biblical English (uncommon even in the 1600s). Now if you want to argue that this is not the best term to use for such, than help yourself. But to make it anything more than that would be unfair and just plain wrong.

And again, if you disagree with the way some of the words are defined in the Defined KJB, you are in your right to do so. But it would be unwise to throw out the whole due to a few disagreements. I also have not always liked the way a word was defined in the Defined KJB. But more times than not, the footnotes have been very helpful to me (considering I speak and understand American English, which is much different than that of the KJV) in understanding the diction of what I am reading. I know of many Bible-believing brethren who have testified of its usefulness to them as well.

Nevertheless, my purpose in life is not to defend the works of those that I favor. So if you guys wish to criticize and disapprove of the Defined KJB, you are in your right to do so though I disagree. But those reading this thread deserve to hear different perspectives. I have offered mine.

God bless.

bibleprotector · 08:08 AM

In itself using a defined KJB edition is not a problem, though I personally would not utilise such a work. I believe the problem is where people think it is permissible even occasionally to define the words of the English Scripture according to supposed meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words, or else to try and define the roots to English words etymologically, that is to say, this English word comes from Greek, and in Greek this word means _____. The problem with that is that we are dealing with English words, not Greek ones, and whether or not they came from Greek, and had a certain meaning, is beside the point, since the English words as they stand have an English meaning.

A classic example is the Scripture in Matthew 5:18 which states, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." People have tried to argue that the jots and tittles are Greek words, and that they apply to Hebrew lettering. They might say that jot means iota which means jod. What they have utterly failed to appreciate is that jot, iota and jod are entirely different words, and that the word "jod" appears in Psalm 119! Moreover, the word "tittle" comes from Latin, so it cannot be somehow a reference to Hebrew and/or Greek exclusively! The truth is that "jot" and "tittle" are English words, with English meanings listed in English dictionaries. These words can (and really, must) apply to the words of Scripture as they are communicated in our English Bible.

As for various words in the Bible not in common use, this does not mean that such a word is "archaic". The reality is that many words may be not be commonly used, whether names "Hamath", theological terms "propitiation", items "ephod", etc., yet we should see these as particular. No less should words like "tires", "wimples" or "taches" be thought "archaic", as the Scripture presently uses them, so they should be retained, and if needed, explained.

As for the Bible using the language of the day in 1611, clearly, we are observing Bible English, one that is intelligible to believers today as much as then, because of the conduciveness which exists between Bible English and the various times and places of English since 1611. The KJB therefore has some sort of lasting impact, a continuing relevance, despite the ebb and flow of present opinions (and definitions).

In all this, I think that Waite has done the best he could do according to his beliefs. If a person upholds a modern construction of the Greek TR as being more authoritative than the English, there is a flaw. For example, his opinions include that he does not “like to use the word ‘inerrant’ of any English (or other language) translation of the Bible because the word ‘inerrant’ is implied from the Greek ... which means literally, ‘God-breathed.’ God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English ... He did ‘breathe out’ Hebrew/Aramaic [sic], and Greek. Therefore, only the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek can be rightly termed ... ‘inerrant’! It is my personal belief and faith that the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible have been preserved by God Himself so that these texts can properly be called ‘inerrant’ as well as being the very ‘inspired and infallible words of God’!” He goes on to state that people apparently cannot “take over completely 100% of what He has there [in the Hebrew and Greek]. I think the King James translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic [sic], putting it into English, and the Greek, putting it into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the Greek meanings, as they translated it into the English language. There are many other choices in English they could have used ...” (Defending the KJV, pages 239, 240).

In other words, he does not believe the Word of God is fully 100% sense for sense in English, and this implies that the authority of Scripture ultimately is not in English. Of course, no one can show absolutely where the final correct form of the Scripture is in Greek, and even Scrivener’s critical Textus Receptus has issues where it does not match the English properly. (Another problem is that "Aramaic" is the wrong word, in that it should be "Syriack".)

If we ask, "Where is the book of the LORD (see Isaiah 34:16) we are supposed to read?" it cannot be in Greek, which is now a vastly unknown tongue, uncommon, only containing a New Testament tradition (the Greek Old Testament is accepted by no one as perfect!), and it requires too much leaning on the world and unbelievers to interpret. This is quite the opposite to the time of Tyndale, where now we must rely upon the English Bible we have received, not the field of original language studies, and good-but-INCOMPLETE sense English Bibles... I believe the KJB gives the full text of the entire Bible as well as the full sense of every word.

Diligent · 06-30-2009, 08:02 AM

The bottom line, in my opinion, is this:

Someone new to the KJV is going to need something to help them through the unfamiliar words and grammar for a while. The best choice would be the complete Oxford dictionary, but such a thing is impracticable for most people. After that, my suggestions are David Daniels' small pamphlet (for portability) and the Webster 1828.

However, we must always let the Bible define its own words. For that reason, a concordance (or Bible software) is more important than dictionaries.

Finally, once the reader has familiarized himself with the KJV, neither the Webster 1828 nor a list of synonyms (like the King James Bible Companion or Waite's definitions) are going to be sufficient when the reader comes across difficult sentences. At that point, it is a matter of study more than a matter of having a particular dictionary.

bondservant40 · 06-30-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent

I have one of these on the shelf. I would suggest strongly that instead of getting this, someone should get a good Bible without the notes and then use David Daniels' King James Bible Companion which is thin enough to be put between the last page and cover. I found the "Defined" King James Bible to be of very low quality typesetting and printing, and frankly, it just isn't necessary when someone can have a tiny dictionary "on the side" for when they need it, rather than having someone else's "updates" always calling for attention in the text.

I second that idea. We have a KJB companion - and that is a fabulous solution!

As a personal side story: When I switched to the KJV around 1992 or 93, if there was a KJB dictionary out at the time, I didn't know about it. [The defined Bible sure wasn't out yet] I was brand new to the King James and spent my entire 1st yr with the KJB w/a full websters dictionary at my side - not even the 1828 one. lol. I remember looking up words soooooo often! ...But I learned!!

From my experience -If God places the knowledge of the truth and desire in our hearts to drink from His pure water - He will also give us a way and the will power to do what it takes to switch.

bondservant40 · 06-30-2009, 05:50 PM

Oops - sorry - we have the Concise KJB dictionary - same thought applies though

06-30-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

d. there is a marked reliance upon the "Hebrew" and the "Greek". For example, "devil" is defined as "demon" (as if "devil" isn't clear enough), "pence" is defined as "denarius" (a simple word being defined as a foreign, complex one, to the confutation of the sense), "frankly" wrongly defined according to the Greek, rather than the English, where it comes from the Latin, via French.

I see the names assigned to various denominations of coins in the AV as one of the areas where it could have been translated much better. A denarius is a specific Roman silver coin that was used all over the Empire. To translate "Denarius" as "Penny" is rather misleading and confusing to those not familiar with coinage in the First Century and in the early 1600s in England. A Denarius was more or less a days wage in the First Century, in the 1600s in England a common day's pay was a Shilling (=12 Pence). This choice of translation confuses the value of the coin in question.

In fairness to the AV translators it should be noted that the English Penny can trace it's origins to the Roman Denarius. When the Empire fell, coined money became much less common for a while, when trade and the need for coined money revived in the AD 700s the French introduced a silver coin called a "Denier" it's inspiration should be fairly obvious by the name alone. The French Denier was about the same diameter but rather lighter than the Roman Denarius. Not to be outdone, the English introduced their own coin minted to the same specifications as the French Denier, it would become known as the Penny. Throughout the Middle Ages the English Penny had a lot of buying power, but by the Tudor period had been shrunk in size and was quite debased.

In my opinion calling the Denarius a "Penny" confuses things rather than simplifies them. Most people know what a Denarius is and if they don't, it is not hard to learn what one is. Calling it a Penny suggests that is had much less buying power than was in fact the case, this was true in 1611 and is even more true today.

An even worse choice of translation is "Farthing." The word Farthing suggests that the coin so translated was worth 1/4 of a Denarius (translated Penny in the AV). In fact the Greek word translated "Farthing" was "assarion." An Assarion may have been a Roman As, which was a bronze coin about 26-30mm in diameter witha weight of about 10g. The Assarion may have also been a bronze coin minted in Antioch that was a bit smaller and thicker than the proper Roman As, but about the same weight and value. In either case the As was not worth 1/4 of a Denarius. There is another coin, the Sestertius which was a large bronze coin of about 33-35mm and with a weight of about 22g. It took 4 Sesterii to make a Denarius and it took 4 Asses to make a Sestertius (so the As was worth 1/16 of a Denarius.

The use of the word "Farthing" by the AV translators very much confuses the meaning and in my opinion* can fairly be called an error.

*My opinion on this matter is based on my 20+ years of experience as a professional numismatist specializing in Roman, Biblical and medieval coinage.

bibleprotector · 07-01-2009, 01:49 AM

Quote: